Looking at all the Conroe (intel) gaming benchmarks tells me I don't have to upgrade for awile as the performance between Conroe and AMD 64 is about the same. If anything I will get a X2;) Woo-Hoo:D
Printable View
Looking at all the Conroe (intel) gaming benchmarks tells me I don't have to upgrade for awile as the performance between Conroe and AMD 64 is about the same. If anything I will get a X2;) Woo-Hoo:D
I was thinking the same thing, maybe once X2's go down in price grab one of those. Still trying to decide if I can afford Conroe though (I can't, what I mean is can I make it work :D ) because the advantage in everything else is nice
conroe is faster clock per clock but ur opt 148 at 2.9 will last you a long time
The X2 3800 will be a great buy since the Conroe prices look inflated. Are those RHT rumors confirmed yet?
if your referring to the Hardocp thread, then you are easily mistaken. HardOCP is known to be pretty AMD fanboyish and thoes benchmarks are obviously not well done. Intel Conroe is up to and over 15% better then AMD clock for clock wise, but once a game is at high high res, then its more GPU dependent. But yeah, an overclocked opteron will last you a long time, you really dont need the performance of a conroe anyway, it is kind of ahead of its time sort of thing.
The guys at HardOCP aren't AMD fanboyish, they're whores who squeal for the dollar. That's how many guys at extremesystems originally ended up here, after getting booted from hardocp from pointing out the the BS the hardocp guys were shoveling in a review that put a p4 in a much undeserved good light.
well i was close enough..........:lol2:
hardocp is not a very good site to visit imo. r3w4 there is no point getting a x2 3800+ after conroe release. thread is Thank god we don't have to upgrade. people with opt that goes to 3Ghz dont raelly have a point to upgrade. but if you have a crappier non duel core and you want to upgrade it is definiately to conroe
That was a reply to Repoman's post. The X2's will priced competitively against Conroe so that's an ignorant comment to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by aintz
I was thinking the same thing. It's taken a long time to get my current right where I wanted it, It would be a smart move to just stick with thw A64's.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3w4
well the x2 3800+ is suppose to be cheaper than the E6300 by like 20usd. core 2 is faster clock per clock than x2 and it ocs better so.
Sigh, now the intel boys are here :(
1 ) Is conroe actually for sale now? no.
2) Is there even ONE good conroe mobo? no.
3) is conroe faster than A64 in real world gaming? no.
4) is conroe going to be on sale @ MSRP soon? Good luck, many places are canceling preorders!
If you play Pi, or 3dmark 2001, go pay out the ass for conroe and a crappy, buggy board.
If you just want a fast and cheap gaming comp, a 3800+ x2 will be cheaper and available. Many great am2 boards are also out.
Oh, like me? Yeah, I'm most likely going to upgrade to Conroe. It kind of pains me, seeing as I have predominantly had AMD since my 386/40, but sometimes you just have to accept that the performance is somewhere else. I will not turn a blind fanboy eye to a better solution. Besides, the wife really needs a decently OC'ed Venice with a 9800Pro. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by aintz
I hope this doesn't sound inflammatory, because I don't want to see a pissing match started in here. These forums don't need it. There are plenty of people here with enough intellectual capacity to avoid the cheap, stupid flamewar crap.
Friends from Microsoft say they are helping AMD work on RHT, They are designing an update for windows XP, Vista will come with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by r3w4
~Mike
Well...If the Conroe overclocks like these then yes, I will be tempted..Quote:
well the x2 3800+ is suppose to be cheaper than the E6300 by like 20usd. core 2 is faster clock per clock than x2 and it ocs better so.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/362/16/
Does anyone think going from (for gaming) a A64 to a conroe will be like going from a P4 to a A64?
of course it will be, but looking on this thread, people here on the AMD section are just hanging onto a thin thread right now, they are saying Conroe isnt living up to the hype, when really, it is on every other site besides HardOCP, i believe some people are just ignoring the fact that its better, the 1.8ghz intel conroe beats the 3800+ no problem, but others say otherwise. Fact being, if you have a dual core right now, then stick with it, no point upgradeing from dual core to dual core, its better to just go from dual core to quad core.
It isnt. I can knock off 19s pi 1m with this Yonah, and its no faster than my FX, at some things, its actually slower than the FX (64 bit apps, I run a 64 bit os)Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
MY 2.8 GHZ FX60 scores the same in (64 bit)cinebench as (32 bit)x6800 :(
You all need to get off of this BS.... If this was [H] attacking XS you'd be singing a different toon... Kyle is not an AMD fanboy; he calls it as he sees it… If Fugger, OPP, or others from here would have written this review you’d be saying; Oh my! God has spoken…Quote:
Originally Posted by keiths
I’m not a AMD fanboy but I’ve gotta tell ya, Intel has been breaking it off in you for years… The introduction of the P4 was a disgrace; out of the box it couldn’t touch the P3. Not only did they successfully shove BS down your throat, but they did it at an extremely exaggerated price point, and they did it for years… You may not hold a grudge, but I do…
Why not just sort through the reviews and make up your own mind…. For instants, I’m not a gamer (way too old and fat); if I was, I wouldn’t even consider making a change right now. On they other hand, I encode a lot of DVD’s so based on what I’ve seen thus far, moving to Conroe might be a good decision. I’m just not quite ready to bail because Intel says I should…
One more thing… In this forum, we’ve enjoyed for years whipping up on the Intel guys… Maybe it’s just their turn! Let’s get over it and move on to whats important to us... :) :)
Regards-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
If you encode, you need to see how fast 64 bit XVID is on both platforms.
fhpchris, love the avatar and love my Evo;)
I didn't base this thread title on Hardocp alone..
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_090f.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...essors/12.html
Good Words... :fact: :woot: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by pcdoc1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
Evo's are fun cars to drive around, two of my friends own them :)
I also didnt base my opinions on [H]'s review.
[h] is showing exactly the same thing as all the other sites that are showing real world gaming. the review is a gaming only review not a general performance review. about 3-4 other reviews show high res high quality benchmarks all show remarkably similar results to [h], a few of those ones show low res and low quality benchmarks aswell and those are remarkably similar to all the other sites doing ONLY low res benchies. not a single person in the entire freaking world will use a single x1900xt and play games at 1024x768, quite a few will benchmark at 1280x1024 unless screen limited, and even then unlike the reviews you will for sure be playing in completely maxed out settings for quality which will make a good deal of games gpu limited which again would show same results on any 2.2Ghz or so processor up(obviously a little faster for a p4 chip).Quote:
Originally Posted by SepheronX
there is still, to this day one single forum which shows high res with double the fps in fear and oblivion, out of 15 billion reviews, previews not a single one supports that, those numbers looked bogus before the reviews, they look more bogus now--- they are infact bogus.
most of the decent sites say they ran benchmarks in low res JUST to show the cpu performing differently. only anandtech ran 1600x1200 and semi high quality but they were running x1900's in crossfire on really some fairly weak games, like hl2, and they still weren't really gpu limited at all, and even then conroe wasn't that far ahead.
hexus shows some 1280x1024, some 1600x1200 and some 1920x1200 benchies at high quality on sli setups and these show fx62 and x6800 performing very very very similarly on more games than not. a couple games like hl2 even run 1920x1200 maxed out without being "that" gpu limited. but other games again show completely identical fps's when gpu limited.
if you've ever played a game while not gpu limited, you wasted money on a better card than you needed.
every review that shows a card being used to its potential in the same way anyone of us would use, and the same way [h] used it shows the same results. if you can find a review that uses a x1900/7900 at 1600x1200, or crossfire at 1600x1200/1920x1200 that proves other wise link me up. please.
EDIT:- just like the [h] review which is just about gaming, this thread isn't "i dont' have to get conroe its not faster in any situation at all" this is " i don't have to get a conroe because it won't give me a bump in fps at the resolutions i want to play at" thread. every review that bothered to do high res/high quality backs that up. no one in this thread is saying conroe isn't the better or faster cpu. if this thread were "i encode divx/render stuff/ encrypt/decrypt/bench and i'm not sure if i should get a conroe" i would, and everyone would say, get one it will rock your world. but for gaming that simply isn't the case. unless of course you have a x1900xt but love to play at 1024x768 all day long(of course at that res with that card a celeron will give you a solid 100+fps all day long so again, do you need 450fps in fear?).
Thanks, I'll check it....... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
You know, nobody's forcing anybody to upgrade. If you want to, do it. If you don't, then don't. I want to upgrade, I'm not sure where, so I sit and read reviews from everywhere I can, weigh the results from what I know about the sites, laugh at Kyle from [H], and then come here to sort it out by comparing peple who have had it for a lot longer's scores. (Yes, I know that's improper English.)
Based on my research, there's no GOOD choice right now. You have Conroe, fast, with buggy boards and RAID issues, AM2, which is a lot like my 939, except I have to buy new RAM and a new board, for very similar performance, or I can stay 939 on an EOL'ed socket. I'm waiting for a real reason to even repair my system.
We can argue all day till we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, none of the options look all that inviting. Conroe will not make a real difference in anything but my compiling, and if I compile my kernel to take advantage of it a simple 3800 X2 can run rings around it. (the joys of Linux, total scaleability.) The issue is then not what does everyone need to do but what do YOU need to do. None of us get up in the morning and use our PCs for the exact same thing, so why say the exact same setup every time for everyone? Doesn't make sense to me...
Oh well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's just my opinion, and I don't really care if no one shares it. Being a Linux user, I bet I look at things differently anyway...
Really, if you already have a socket 939 single core, it's much easier to upgrade to an X2 than to C2D. $150 for 3800 X2 vs $700 for mobo, ram and E6600? If that extra 15% is really worth that much to you, go for it.
Or reuse your old DDR1 and $70 + chip cost(Like an e6300 that will blow an x2 out the water and overclocks quite nicely http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html )
http://www.asrock.com/product/775Twins-HDTV%20R2.0.htm
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=321920 ($70 USD).
DDR and e6300, how does that work........
I don't need the latest and greatest, I just "updated" last fall (from an NF2) and if need be will get an X2 in the future.
My rig is fast enough (yup, I would like it to be faster) but I will not fork out for the upgrades until I think it is needed.
I will look with envy but I will not miss the extra speed that the Conroe guys are throwing out..............my stuff runs great right now.
:toast:
Raybo
Awesome fanboy remark, as real-world gaming benchmarks did prove it had a quite a lead over AMDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
I dunno you AMD fanboys interpreted, but you realize Hardocp was running at high resolutions, which GFX are bottlenecks?
1280X1024 16XAF in oblivion? Don't tell me there is no GFX bottleneck for that
Here's my take:
Conroe is fast. Very fast. At encoding it's clear that conroe destroys AMD, at least in 32 bit. Now when it comes to gaming, not much a difference. Conroe does take the lead by up to 20 fps at times, but that is with CPU power hungry CF/SLI.
BUT conroe does clock MUCH higher (unless the retail chips start to suck) than AMD, so even if it's hardly faster clock for clock, a 3.6 conroe will crush a 3ghz amd.
On the other hand, conroe has serious board issues. If you want dual cards, you need a 975 board. From what I gathered, the infinity is finicky, P5W DH is buggy at times, and the badaxe likes to randomly die. That's just from what I've read. 965 looks good but it's slightly slower than 975 and we don't know a whole lot about it. Keep in mind that there's still a lot of boards that are not released yet and it's early so we can expect BIOS fixes. There's also the ATI and Nvidia chipsets coming up.
Being a gamer I've decided to stick with AM2. I'd rather get a better video card instead. If I hadn't sunk my money into one of the best AM2 boards, I'd probably go conroe. If you're coming from 939 or single core, or you do a lot of encoding, then it's worth it to jump over. If you're already on AM2, then why bother. Unless you HAVE to have the best and you can afford it.
My 2 cents.
Maybe Intel fanboys should stay in the Intel forum... Why come over here an start ch!t... Just wondering? :)
maybe fanboys should post on blogs so we can get down to playing with some hardware.
Which once again proves that an X2 is more than adequate to handle gaming. Believe it or not, most people don't game at 640x480 with no AA or AF. If you already have a very capable AMD platform, why sink your money in C2D when you can upgrade your graphics card for the same amount and get much better performance? If I were building a whole new PC, I'd go C2D, but going from an X2 to C2D wouldn't help much for the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celeron Gamer
It works with the board linked to, it supports Conroe, DDR1, & DDR2.
Sorry, what is RHT?Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
Great, except the abortion boards have never been worth squat.... They're designed and sold as a cheap way to bragging rights. :slapass:
Great post....... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
Regards-
:toast: :toast: :woot: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
One way or the other I will always be a few steps behind the cutting edge.
Hey.........it's just the way I am.
:toast:
reverse hyper-threadingQuote:
Originally Posted by Kobalt
I agree with this statement but the thing is most of us probably game @ 1280x1024. Looking at the benchmarks so far, a 600mhz scale is not going to add much in performance, maybe 1-5 fps. So again I don't see a reason to upgrade just yet. Although better MoBo support may change things.Quote:
BUT conroe does clock MUCH higher (unless the retail chips start to suck) than AMD, so even if it's hardly faster clock for clock, a 3.6 conroe will crush a 3ghz amd.
I was (or maybe I still am) one of the AMD guys that was ready to jump ship as soon a conroe came out. I was ready to dump my MoBo, ram, CPU, then reinstall Windows, blah, blah, blah. Now I'm just glad I don't have to right now (it's becoming a PITA) meaning if it was THAT much faster I would HAVE to upgrade. I have upgraded 5 times over the past 2 years and I have to say my current rig is holding out longer than I thought it would. The 7900 series gpu wasn't that much better than my 7800. The AM2s are not that much faster than my CPU. Conroe is proving to be in the same boat.
If the diff ends up being like that of a P4 V.S A64 in gaming..Intel here I come:p:
So what does reverse hyper threading do...what is it???
I gather it has something to do with changing two cores into one...
Well if you don't game all the time, and instead do other things like, oh, encode stuff, 3d render, etc, Conroe will rock our Athlons. :)
The only reason it doesn't in games is cuz the GPU becomes the bottleneck first typically.
And, btw, Conroe pricing isn't too bad actually. Especially when you read about how the low models overclock. Held back by the board though. Maybe DFI will save the day there.
I'm looking for an X2 on the cheap, any body willing to give me a deal yet?
:toast:
Two things come of this.
AN Oced X2 can match a conroe in gaming performance. And, upcoming 65nm X2s which should be able to clock much higher will match Conroe OCs on air :) .. well at least we'll see the 3ghz ceiling listed. With 3.2 and 3.4ghz on air being seen with higher multi's.
Perkam
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
Once you are off your drugs, try looking at the benchmarks again.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...2_performance/
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/10351
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?...&page=13&pp=20
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1988804,00.asp
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...splay.php?f=59
http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...-duo-test.html
http://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=489587
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha..._e6700/16.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ssfear1600.gif
That 5 fps difference between a 2.8ghz and 2.93ghz chip is MASSIVE!
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33048
He said it's pretty fast and all.The only bad thing was the system crapped out on him while doing any 3D stuff.Probably mobo related.
Anyway,the really interesting part of his coverage was the following quote from the end of his article:
Note the plural in responses :).What could those be? :DQuote:
From what I have seen, all the rumors were true. There is no cheating, no trick drivers, no baked setups, or anything underhanded, it is just faster. Several potential AMD responses have crossed my inbox, but until they show up and are independently measurable, Conroe is the fastest thing you can buy, and completely lives up to the hype. µ
No no afireinside,i saw elsewhere a more MASSIVE difference of total 8 fps :DQuote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
Really worth of spending lil fortune on mobo cpu and ram to get those massive 8-10 fps :D
So if you have a X1900XTX maxxed out, Conroe and FX-62 are pretty close. How about with Crossfire, SLI, or the next king of the hill video card?
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You guys are missing the most important point of that benchmark picture. It is showing very high detail, and we all know that high details do not stress a CPU very hard. What would be good to see is 1280 x 1024 with no AA or AF. The CPU becomes less important on single card configurations with higher details and you guys know that.
technically there are high detail tests and low detail tests that are important for everything.
1. Yes, I ordered mine two days ago. It should be here soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
2. Yes, I own one and it seems good.
3. Yes, I have read tests which indicate this.
4. Yes, I ordered one that was not inflated and either way, I do not care!
I play BF2 and a plethora of other games and use my computer for just about everything - I am sure C2D will be capable of processing whatever I choose to do with it.
If you don't like it, fine. Who cares. You'll have to wait for a response by AMD unless you can find it in yourself to order a processor which has "Intel" branded on it.
-k0nsl
Quote:
Originally Posted by SepheronX
agreed
at 1600x1200 my stock speed opty and OCed to 3000ghz has about a 10fps diffrence in cs:s benchmark
so i dont care right now
i might get spanked in super pi but i only have a computer for hi-res games
________
MAZDA NAGARE PICTURE
hahahahaha, It sure is isnt it?Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
~Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanometer
I guess we should all play games at low quality so Conroe will be faster.. hahaha :-) How about we looks at REAL games, at 1600x1200 w/ AA x8 or higher, and AF on 16x. Thats all im interested in.
If this is all im interested in, than Conroe doesnt look like a good choice for me does it? Im not interested in play games at low quality...
~Mike
I wont be riding on the latest and greatest wave again. It's really a no win situation as technology and prices fluctuate too fast. I do like the Conroe but probably will skip it atleast untill xmas time to see price changes or anything newer. People are forgetting that AMD hasnt switch to 65nn technology yet. So the latest AMD is still using 90nn compare to Conroe is a big difference in better heat dissipation and performance factor. I think once AMD finnaly switch over to the new fab, we will see some good competition to come.
4x4, K8L, AM3, DDR3, RHT ;)
think about it though, it was a differnt war cry not so long ago when x2s where thrashing pds in gameing, why have the rules changed?
What's all the fanboyism about? Who gives a rat's ass whose name is on the processor?:shrug:
Man, both the Intel and AMD fanboys need to get a grip. Being into PCs, overclocking and all that is nerdy enough without the subclass of super-nerds actually worrying about CPU brand loyalty. Jeez:slap:
I would think a "true" enthusiast would get whatever offer the best performance for the money regardless of branding. I've flipped flopped back and forth between Intel and AMD for the last 8 years. Look at some of the top gamers, clockers, artists, and power users and you'll see they go with what works best. Only the small niche of super-weenies sit here and argue about brand and actually worry about whose cpu is best. Aren't you guys embarressed acting like this?
The whole "US vs THEM" thing in the AMD and Intel forums nothing short of the kindergarten playground setting.
Why is it that when new CPU technology comes out which trumps the competition, the brand loyalty weenies go into denial? When the original Athlon showed up in 1999 the Intel PIII guys cryed that AMD offered nothing special...until it was overwhelmingly apparent and then folks switched over. When the P4 Williamette came out, the AMD weenies cried. But....eventually many folks switched over to Intel again. Then back to A64. On and On. But with every swing of the pendulum, the fanboys who cheer for the team which is then behind go into denial mode.
Right now Conroe is the best cpu.....for everything. Price and performance considered, it trounces everything AMD has for EVERYTHING....including gaming. Using a mediocre video card to bottleneck the system proves nothing about the gaming performance of a cpu. Nothing. In fact, if folks want to hang their hat on the "games are GPU limited" theory, then they are fools for switching to AMD64 chips or Opterons in the first place.
Another problem with the "games are GPU limited" way of hiding your head in the sand is that not all games, even current ones, are GPU limited. There is more to gaming then first person shooters. There are some pretty CPU intensive RTS games out there. Here's a high res comparision of a great RTS game:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1152971988
Now that, folks, is an old fashion ass whoopin in gaming performance.
Now, if some folks need to "feel better" about not wanting to upgrade, then fine. Not everyone has the time and money to be able to upgrade. And, to defend one's own system as "good enough" for their use is fine too. Whether or not one's own system is adequate for what they do, or what they can afford, is a personal choice. BUT, to sit here and make up BS about Conroe not ripping AMDs head off in gaming by hiding behind GPU bound benchmarks is silly. It defines the very essence of fanboi.
BTW, I am NOT from the Intel forum. I am from XS. I have been for years. I build top of the line gaming rigs. That's simply what iI do and I've run numerous AMD and Intel systems of the years. I'm just here pointing out how silly a few of you look trying to hide from the truth that Conroe is now the best CPU on the planet for everything. If you don't want to, or cannot, upgrade...great. But let's get our heads out the fanboy sand before we start looking like [H] around here.
yes very knowledgeable. some games are gpu limited and some are cpu limited. and some benchmarks are not very accurate. i trust anandtech over other sites because it is almost always accurate and the information given is not biasedQuote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
Well, I'm buying a full new computer, so of course I'm going Conroe. Evenly matched chips (after price drops) between the X2s and Conroes will have Conroe's on top every time.
And I had to lol at the title. AM2 just came out...AM3 will be too(which would force the AM2 socket), either way if you want to stay up with everything, you're going to upgrade. Only difference is that the AMD upgrade isn't neccessary since the X2s don't suck like the Prescotts, Ds, etc.
As you come in with conroe writen all over your sig...
Technically, My system, at 2.8 ghz, will offer very good gaming results, "For the money" So whats the point on spending more money on an R6600, or a R6700, or a V6800?
Some would say, a true enthusist will wait until K8L comes out for AM2/AM3,
I have a nice AM2 setup right now, Just waiting for the Monster to come to town.
Fanboyism... LOL Are you sad because people dont want to switch to intel with you? :slapass: Trust me, You dont need someone holding your hand to do it. There is tons of people from the Intel section that will hold your hand.
~Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
When K8L comes out it will be AM2 compatable, and AM3 compatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shpoon
AM2 = DDR2
AM3 = DDR3
~Mike
Ive been an AMD fan since I upgraded from my last Intel ,a PII 250MHZ. I love my current Opty 165 @ 3ghz and I wont upgrade since I dont really need to. Still, I cant deny that Conroe is faster than AMD clock for clock at this moment in CPU applications. Obviously at 1600x1200 gaming, CPU is not really the bottleneck most of the time so that kind of testing is pointless. I dont like Intel so I will wait for AMD to come up with some new product...AMD has been kicking Intel's ass for a long time so it was about time for them to catch up. Im confident AMD will beat them soon again.
Regards
Sorry, you misinterpretted me. AM3 will make 939 obsolete. Currently, while 939 is obsolete, AM2 offers no substantial advantage that makes an upgrade valuable (mostly). AM3 will make you have to upgrade, as 939 will be obsolete by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
The "Thank god we don't have to upgrade." leads me to belive he's talking about 939 (or else the title is hypocritical anyways if he's talking AM2 since it just came out), so I'm saying that it's not really valid since you'll have to upgrade anyways.
Only good thing is that by then, the AM2 mobos will be well established.
I love AMD i've had almost all of the athlon serie cpu's.
I had a venice 3000+, but since i was plannig to change to something dual cored i will try conroe simply for the money/performance.
But surely i'll never sell my skA mobile 2600+ ou my sempr0n 2800+.
Yes Conroe is really good , but Amd has made de best cpu's ever no one can doubt about it!
None of us are saying AMD is better than Intel Conroe, we are saying that for gaming Conroe would not give much improvement over our current gaming rigs. Your RTS benchies show nothing more than a game that does not use high end graphics or stress the GPU that much, not to mention who cares about mega FPS in a RTS game. Conroe is a faster CPU no question, but in todays high demanding game engines (the games most of us play the most) the conroe will do little to make ones gaming much better.Quote:
What's all the fanboyism about?
Yes very true, spending 1000.00 on a Conroe setup for 1-8 fps more is NOT the best performace for the money if you own a A64 gaming rig such as mine.Quote:
I would think a "true" enthusiast would get whatever offer the best performance for the money regardless of branding
True, but I wouldn't say "trounces AMD in gaming".Quote:
Right now Conroe is the best cpu.....for everything. Price and performance considered, it trounces everything AMD has for EVERYTHING....including gaming
More games coming out today and in 6 months will be GPU limited, I am not spending a Grand to play a RTS game at 200 fps. We are not hiding our heads in the sand, todays game engines are GPU limited, it's a fact and no CPU including Conroe can overcome that. Now as GPUs become more powerfull maybe then Conroe will be worth the upgrade but as for now...Quote:
Another problem with the "games are GPU limited" way of hiding your head in the sand is that not all games, even current ones, are GPU limited. There is more to gaming then first person shooters. There are some pretty CPU intensive RTS games out there. Here's a high res comparision of a great RTS game:
"Thank god we don't have to upgrade";)
If you want the fastest bench's then conroe is the way to go, there is simply no denying that conroe IS the fastest CPU available right now. However, if you want a faster gaming rig and you already own a decent amd rig the sensible person would simply upgrade his VGA rather than pay for a new mobo/ram/cpu.
All this fanboyism sux, we should be celebrating that intel have finally got thier act together and applied some pressure to amd who will now hopefully get off there backsides and create something even better...this can only be good for the consumer. Anyone who sticks to one brand out of loyalty is deluded, my 'loyalty' rests with whoever is producing the best kit at the best price and right now thats intel....justifying an upgrade for the gains conroe offers however is a completely different matter. I won't be praising the lord coz I 'don't need to upgrade', I will be arguing with the wife coz she wont let me!
I still have an AMD rig and am finishing a Conroe rig. All I care about is who is the fastest in benching.
I get tired of hearing " you can't buy then now" in one breath on Conroe and then saying "$150 X2 3800" in the next. :stick:
I am looking for one, please give a link where I can get one.:rolleyes:
It can't be both ways.;)
You are just plain wrong man. mdzcpa is a true gamer and has shown us some top gaming rigs. I think he could care less who switches and who doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
You have no respect from me as mdzcpa is just too nice of guy for you to come off with your garbage.
all you people talking about performance per money:
this is xtremesystems.com, not bang-for-your-bucksystems.com.
thank you and continue your regularly scheduled flaming and fanboiness
Agreed. Mdzcpa made a good post and you're reply to him was just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogsx2
Ah yes, I feel like I'm back in 2003. Except replace evey instance of "A64" with "Conroe", and "Prescott" with "Opteron". ;)
how does opty 165 compare to conroe in oblivion?
according to the post in the news section .. amd has 4x4 ready for conroe .. i guess in q4 of 06 .. should be quite interesting
I agree. Looking at 100% GPU limited gaming benchmarks run at 1600x1200 with 4xTR SSAA, 16xAF and max IQ settings tells me that I don't have to upgrade either since A64 and X2 are no faster than my old P4C. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rodman
LOL, if there was no Conroe would you be thinking about upgrading?
If the numbers at [H] would have been greater in favor of Conroe would you have felt you "had to upgrade"? Even if your happy with what you have now?
I don't understand why if a guy doesn't have the very best that AMD has to offer, why is he concerned about how fast Intel is if AMD is the only cpu you want.
Most on XS upgrade hardware for the fastest benchs or faster gaming rigs.
They don't have too, they want to.;)
Your powers of observation are astute indeed. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
But, seriously, thanks anyway for pointing that out. In fact, considering that I was running an overclocked FX-60 just 2 weeks ago, its an important point. I don't say that Conroe is best because I run one, I run one because its the best. That's what I do....run the best. I assemble THE best systems possible at the given buget.
I have no issue with anyone making a logical argument that based on their GPU set up, and their choice of games, that the expense of a full move to a Conroe system may not be warranted. But, the truth of the matter is that my response to anyone who says that would be "no $hit sherlock." The simple fact that graphical high end games have been GPU limited has been known for YEARS. So I can only commend everyone who feels the need to repeat this for their keen mastery of the obvious. Again bravo.
However, the point of this thread is not about whether upgrading to "a better cpu" regardless of brand would be beneficial or not considering all the relevant details of the specific system as a whole, or the intended purpose of the system. No, its a blanket comment about Conroe's gaming ability which reeks of fanboyism. When A64 debuted and nudged the Intel chips by a few fps in high res gaming, AMD fans sprung chubbies and rejoiced and named the New King. Now Intel comes along and leapfrogs A64 by an even larger margin then the A64 leapt over the Intel Netburst chips, and all the AMDroids want to say "it don't matter...we're GPU limited anyway." Talk about fanboyism at its pinnacle.
No one "has to" upgrade. No one "had to" upgrade when A64 came out either. Frankly, with the logic in this thread, everyone who purchased an A64 set up was fool. A much cheaper low end P4 solution would have been the better fit since everything is GPU limited anyway. But, in the end, the near future will tell the truth. When folks start plunking down less money on the more mainstream Conroe chips and get performance exceeding that of the high end AMD set ups, the reality will set in.
I certainly didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch in here. Now I know why I usually do not venture into either the AMD or Intel forums too much. As someone who could care less about CPU brand, I just thought I'd comment on a phenominon I've seen happen repeatedly over the last few product cycles.
EDITED- Tried to keep the wording toned down as I don't want to cause any personal arguments here.
Well said. The only loyalty I have is to my dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdzcpa
Conroe does not beat A64 by, "A larger margin" than Clawhammer beat 130nm P4 stuff.
I run both architectures, and in 64 bit A64 reclaims alot of that lost speed.
Conroe is faster, but not by ~10-15% more assuming A64 runs 64 bit.
I am comparing a 2.8 GHZ FX 62 to a Conroe@2.93. It will be interesting to see how the average e6700 overclocks, as it may sway me enough to make an upgrade worth it.Quote:
But you are comparing a VERY overclocked Opteron/X2 to a stock Conroe. Do you really think ANYONE at XS is going to sit back and run any of these chips at stock?
Trying to game on a P4 rig was pointless. If one wanted to play games at good frame rates on any resolution an A64 rig was the ONLY way to go and thus HAD to upgrade. A p4 rig always trailed behind an A64 in gaming benchmarks regardless of the resolution or graphics settings. Just look at the old 955 EE CPU trailing behind the A64 and Conroe in every resolution bench. I'm not seeing this with A64 and Conroe.Quote:
No one "has to" upgrade. No one "had to" upgrade when A64 came out either. Frankly, with the logic in this thread, everyone who purchased an A64 set up was fool. A much cheaper low end P4 solution would have been the better fit since everything is GPU limited anyway.
Lets just face the facts here. In real world gaming a Conroe is no better than an A64 provided the core speeds of the chips are the same, it's really as simple as that.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6153900/p-2.html
Gamespot is showing the same thing. 3DMark 06 is only showing a 200 point spread between an FX 60 and a E6800.
well said Mdzcpa.
I own both, overclocked A64 & conroe and I must admit the intel is FASTER (even if I have/had ton of A64 chips and loved them. Performance over loyalty)
Actually, at the time they came out (a mirror of today) it didn't matter afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodman
Nicely said Mdzcpa.
Ok this is ridiculous. It boils down to using what works and if conroe works so be it.... I've used AMD for quite some time, i have also dabbled with pentium, I seem to remember the 2.4C chips prior to prescott i also remeber playing with durons when p3 was a flop, then going back to pentium then back to amd with bartons or dltc3 1700 tbreds, bottom line the hardware market shifts and you may like a brand better than another but there can only be one and atm it seems like the guys in blue have the upper hand.
Nice one! If you have good S939 platform then upgrading the GPU to 7900GTX SLi or X1900XTX Crossfire will increase the gaming raw power. No point spending money on new platform just few fps in most GPU/shader/vertex limited game. :woot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ic3man
Yes. 64bit AMD is faster than 32bit AMD. However, 64bit intel is on par with 32bit intel, if not slower!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
Conroe is faster than AMD, that is clear. However, it is just too expensive for me. The difference in performance at the resolution I run just isn't worth the extra £'s
(haven't read whole thread because my tummy hurts too much of laughing :D , I just want to react on this statement)
1) correct, but that's temporary. AMD will be overpowered soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
2) correct. Intel changed the launch date and mobo manufacturers aren't ready yet, in september this should be totally different. (september was the original launch date, manufacturers anticipated on that)
3) correct. VGA is a bottleneck for C2D, that's why you need to test on low resolution to see what C2D has to offer.
4) Intel doesn't want C2D to be sold before launch. Only shops who give the abillity to preorder, but not ask for payment yet, are allowed to do so.
I believe this is why so many AMD loyalists ignore C2D:
Most of those loyalists are still working with a s939. This is still a really fast platform, it's not because AM2 and C2D appeared that this has become slow.
But if they want the best of the best and want to upgrade to C2D, DDR2 is needed, which easely costs $300. Also the mobos aren't cheap because of the accelerated launch date.
Another reason is that the ones working with s939 or AM2 are seeing the price cuts coming near, I have to admit I would also wait if I had an AMD config because AMD is still fast, but you won't be breaking any records with that.
For gamers with an X2 4200+ or above is upgrading to C2D useless, graphic cards aren't fast enough to make it useful. For the ones who like benching it's a necessairy need to convert.
But the one thin I can't understand is why AMD loyalists are still ignoring C2D's power and are still praising AMD?
C2D is clock for clock better, and another plus is that it clocks (on air) above 4GHz! I still have to see 4GHz with an AMD dual core.
Ones ATI launches it's chipset AMD won't stand a chance. The current C2D problems is sucky mobos and FSB limitations.
Correct me if I'm wrong ;)
And don't start fanboyistic flaming.
That is the very reason why you don't need to upgrade the CPU/platform to make real game run a faster. You basically have concluded all the points in this thread. :woot:
Conreo is fast BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMa
Exactly as I'm thinking. I'm in the position of wanting to upgrade to a dual core cpu but my budget is limited. I still think S939 is a very capable socket and I'm looking to upgrade to an Opteron 165 that does 2.8GHz+. I don't want to ditch my UTT and lovely SLI-DR board yet and buy budget DDR2 and crappy Intel board which would be required if I would choose that option. Need money for a new DX10 gfx card update soon too.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMa
IMO upgrading to a Conroe/Intel setup is reasonable for:
1. Intel users with a non-C2D cpu.
2. AMD users with S939 Winchester or older (includes all Socket754, Socket A etc. owners).
3. Rich bastards that can upgrade whenever they like. :D
Users that doesn't have to upgrade:
1. AMD X2 or dual core Opteron owners.
2. AMD single core ~3GHz and above (Opteron/San Diego and alike).
3. Those who are loving their UTT/BH5 DDR1 sticks still. :D
4. Those who just can't afford it.
All of those reasons are correct imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
But for the 3th one of "doesn't have to upgrade", there is a DDR2 alternative for BH5. D9DQT & D9GMH! Which are voltage hungry IC's.
How is this even a debate?
Conroe is faster, clock for clock, and it also has a higher ceiling.
Most of us have AMD 939 setups from when they were top of the hill. Why not stick with them? They're not slow.
If you have the cash, buy Conroe, if you just want to game, why waste $500?
Ryan
oh do tell :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
also VT is important addition in my case for example :)
Unwasted $250 or $300:
http://www.asrock.com/product/775Twins-HDTV%20R2.0.htm
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=321920 ($70 USD).
+ an e6300 or e6400.
and overclock like this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...duo-e6300.html
or higher.
You can't be serious about that AsRock...
As serious as can be. Re-use my old DDR1(2x512MB Winbond BH-5, in case you're curious).
5. Those who has Single core CPU, but with good S939 MB & sweet 2GB of UCCC. Upgrading into X2 3800+ will give you a nice setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD